Amanda Bynes was just released from psychiatric facility: ruh-roh?


Good lord, this is not going to end well. Earlier this week, media outlets announced that Amanda Bynes’ 5150 psych hold had been extended for one month, after the initial 72-hour hold had been extended for two weeks. The one month extension was just verified on Monday! Which was around the same time that Amanda’s parents were once again approved for another conservatorship over Amanda’s finances (and possibly her medical care too). Now TMZ reports that Amanda was let out of the psychiatric facility yesterday. WHAT?!

Amanda Bynes has been released from the psychiatric facility where she’s been held for more than 2 weeks and was roaming the Sunset Strip Thursday night … TMZ has learned.

Sources familiar with Amanda’s treatment tell TMZ … she went before a hearing officer at the psychiatric facility Thursday, asking to be released. Amanda has been on her meds and sounds lucid, even though doctor’s say she is seriously mentally ill.

The hearing officer felt Amanda was stable enough so she could NOT be held involuntarily, so he ended the 30-day hold that had been granted last week and Amanda walked out the front door.

Amanda walked down Sunset Blvd., searching for a place to stay. She then went to a diner where she ordered a ton of food which she devoured — fried chicken, salmon, caesar salad with guacamole, and a house salad with Italian and ranch. She was chit-chatting with the waiter and said she was shy because she had a procedure on her face which required a bandage.

She was alone in the diner and was talking to herself. We’re told Amanda has been looking for a hotel room but she had been turned down at several places.

[From TMZ]

This is one of the biggest problems of profound mental illness – a mentally ill person can be lucid and functional while on medication in a structured psychiatric environment, so the person gets released because they are not exhibiting any danger to themselves or others. Then as soon as they’re released, they go off their medication and the structure is gone and there is a significant “relapse.” It breaks my heart that this one guy decided that Amanda was “well enough” to be released, especially since it seems like her parents had gotten all of their legal ducks in a row to ensure Amanda was locked-down at this facility. Sh-t, man. Let’s see if someone can get her back into treatment.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

91 Responses to “Amanda Bynes was just released from psychiatric facility: ruh-roh?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tracy says:

    So sad. I don’t know what else to say.

    • denisemich says:

      In a way the Amanda Bynes situation is a good thing. It is shining a light on our failure as a society to deal with mental illness without clouding the situation with other issues. We have seen much worse examples of incorrectly treated mental illness ie, Sandy Hook.

      I am not a mental health expert but it seems that Amanda is schizophrenic. Hopefully someone will approach her situation to give her permanent help so she isn’t a danger to someone else.

      Unfortunately, US laws are not made for situations like this.

      • chaine says:

        The reason U.S. laws are like this is that families and communities used to commit people (mostly women) to mental hospitals not only when the women had serious mental illnesses, but also when the women “acted out” in socially unacceptable ways, such as expressing politically unpopular ideas or engaging in sexual activity. In many states, men who wanted to get rid of their wives would give false testimony to have them committed, and commitment could occur without the woman having any legal representation or psychiatric diagnosis. It was, essentially, a prison sentence, sometimes for life. Laws were changed to prevent this type of abuse of the commitment process from happening, but I don’t think the changes anticipated the modern era where people can function fine enough on medication to be released, but without any mechanism to ensure they stay on the medication afterward.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        chaine, you make a great point. I think at one time being homosexual as a reason to be committed.

        I think that it is a very fine line that you have to walk: not allowing abuse of power and imprisoning people who are just untraditional…and on the other hand, we HAVE to give people more to work with than just waiting for a person with mental illness to hurt themselves or others. The status quo isn’t working.

      • Mira says:

        The law definitely does not deal with this adequately, but I think it’s kind of a straw man in this debate. The real issue is that we simply do not know how to adequately deal with mental illnesses. The knowledge has to be there for the law to deal with it correctly. We do not know how to generally deal with mental illnesses because as far as we can see now, they’re diverse and we don’t understand the underlying causes for them. It’s unfortunate but if anything, I hope that this drives motivation for funding of neurological studies, which could provide the much-needed knowledge about mental illnesses.

        I think trying to change the law right now would be futile and mainly to please voters. Like the last major changes in mental health laws, it will just shift around who gets hurt rather than effectively address the issues. Perhaps this is selfish of me, but as a sane person (I hope), I would rather have laws that make it harder for a sane person to get locked up than go back to what we used to have.

    • Esmom says:

      I know, I can’t even imagine how upset and frantic I would be if this was my child.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        I agree ESmom! I can’t believe that one guy could make this decision. This should have been a decision where all her doctors and her parents were there detailing everything that happened and what medications she was on and a plan going forward. You don’t just let her out because she’s on her meds and seems okay and wants to get out! If she dies or kills someone else (or both) this is on that one guy who thought she seemed “stable enough”. The problem with this kind of mental illness (and you hear this again and again after tragedies happen) is that when they are on meds they tend to seem okay and then they don’t want to take them anymore because they often have negative side effects, or they don’t think they need them. They go off the meds and trouble happens. To just let her go off by herself is a stupid and dangerous situation. Maybe if more of these people who make these decisions to let someone go had to take more personal responsibility for it if something happens… even if there was a law where they have to stipulate that they are going against the advice of her drs and in doing so are liable or something. I know that will never happen because you can’t hold people responsible for someone else’s actions, but it seems like not enough thought does into these kinds of decisions (both will the severely mentally ill and in dangerous criminals as well). I hope we don’t end up reading about her involved in some horrible tragedy because she decided to go off her meds. and you know she will.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I agree, Suzy. I don’t know all of the details, but I don’t see how one person could make this decision while she was in the MIDDLE of treatment. Being that she was just given the 30 day schedule earlier in the week, it seems unbelievable that they could sincerely think she turned around that fast.

  2. Birdie says:

    That person who let her out is an idiot.

    • Brin says:


    • emmie_a says:

      I don’t know how the proceedings work, but I’m guessing the judge who let her out was a legal judge? The judge should be a doctor with special legal training, someone who can see the case from a medical and legal perspective — not someone who only sees the legal side. She has legal rights but her illness and safety should trump everything.

      • Suzy from Ontario says:

        But that should never be allowed to happen in a case where the person is clearly mentally ill. The legal side should never just trump the medical experts in letting someone out! That puts the mentally ill person, as well as society in general, at risk. Maybe if there was some way to give them their meds through a shot that lasted for X amount of time and they had to come back every few weeks for a check up and another shot and if they didn’t, then they would be put back into the facility against their will or something. But that doesn’t exist and it’s just not a good response to a dangerous situation. No one without expertise in her condition should be making that kind of call!

      • Cindy says:

        In BC, so I don’t know how this works exactly in California there is what is called a review panel and based on the decision of the review panel a person can be discharged from an involuntary status; this can be because the panel doesn’t believe the doctors assessment they are ill or because the forms were filled out incorrectly- so it covers both legal and medical (in a very condensed way of explaining a very confusing Act and is actually two separate panels legal and medical). And Suzy there is anti-psychotic medications that are injection based and given every two weeks, however a common misconception about involuntary status individuals is that they don’t have the ability to refuse certain medications but that is FALSE and in fact can refuse to take depo injections as the side effects are often more intense. Also there is (again in BC) what is called extended leave and the person is still considered an involuntary patient who has to abide by the rules of their release (compliance with meds for instance) and if they do not they can be brought back in to an inpatient facility. It would stand to reason that California law has something similar to this. I hope.

  3. savu says:

    DOCTORS. PLURAL. Why do people not understand the difference between plurals and possessives?!

    This is sad. Truly sad. I wonder what she was diagnosed with, aka what the meds were treating. I hope her parents aren’t in denial anymore and they find a way to get her back in there. She needs the help.

    • Lisa pizza says:

      Haha, doctor’s stuck out to me too. Why is it so hard for people to know the difference between plural and possessive ?? That, and lose/loose drive me up the wall!

      • whatevs says:

        Yes, you’d think people in the media (TMZ not Celebitchy) would know the difference in there job. It is annoying to read it, I wish someone would teach them there jobs, or they should loose them. Its annoying! 😱

        P.S. It is killing me to hit submit with these mistakes, it is going to take everything in me not to edit this post…….😉

        On a serious note, I certainly hope that they are able to get her back in for care. Afraid it is going to be hard now that she is out though….. Her parents have legal authority over her now, right? Or just her finances? So sad. 😞

      • bluhare says:

        Your sacrifice has not gone unnoticed, whatevs. I twitched with you!

      • Lady D says:

        Fellow twitcher here.

      • MyCatLoves TV says:

        The worst of the worst is The Daily Mail. Granted, I have been away for several years from my job where I actually did have to proofread or be fired but TDM is enough to make me break out in hives. I thought the Brits were supposed to be all Queen’s English, pip pip, what ho and all that rot?!?

  4. Someonestolemyname says:

    I feel so sad for this young woman. I wish her the best.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Me, too. I’m scared for her.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        I am scared too. I have a horrible feeling in my stomach. She is on Sunset? She is going to be near the West Hollywood Carnaval tonight, which is an insane street party. I just hope she is able to survive the surreal atmosphere coupled with available substances. I hope no one takes advantage of her in her state. They estimate there is going to be 500,000 people there!

    • MyCatLoves TV says:

      This will not end well and all I hope is that she doesn’t die or hurt any other living creature. I lived with a man for five years who had severe mental illness. He would take his meds, feel better then stop. Same old story. I used to take his Haldol (strong anti-psychotic), crush it and put it in a milk shake so he would take it. I eventually fessed up and he told me he didn’t want to take it. Fast forward several months and I came home from work to a severely psychotic episode in a man who told me he was going to sacrifice me to Jehovah because he loved me. I escaped while he was in the basement looking for a large enough knife. I keep my keys by the back door to this day. But it was his illness. The human being inside was a nice person as long as he followed his doctor’s orders. Still, I had to break free….and I hope he is taking his medications and is safe. Just not anywhere near me.

  5. Seapharris7 says:

    I hope that idiot gets fired. Doctors & obviously a judge knew she was in a bad way to extend her stay… In less than a week some moron decides he knows better and just releases her. And to what?!? He obviously didn’t even bother to make sure she had a place to live after her release. Unbelievable.

  6. Tammy says:

    You cannot keep someone against their will if they are not a danger to themselves or others.

    • Seapharris7 says:

      While this is true, locally we just had a guy who suffered mental issues his whole life, but once he turned 18 his family could not put him in treatment unless he volunteered. They knew he was a threat, but couldn’t legally do anything.

      He recently went to his mother’s house and stabbed her to death. Likewise, there was also a similar case where the guy strangled his mom, beat her skull in, raped the dead body, and ate her brains… But he didn’t seem to be a threat to court when the mother asked him to be forced into treatment.

      • FingerBinger says:

        The laws need to be changed because it’s incredibly difficult to get adults, who refuse treatment, the help that they need. Unfortunately it takes them doing something harmful to themselves or others for anything to be done. There needs to be something done before it gets to that.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      But how is it that they thought she was a danger just 3 days before? Wouldn’t logic suggest that the reason she was “together” on the 4th day was because of the medical attention that was given on the proceeding 3 days? Wouldn’t that suggest that the treatment was helpful, and therefore, shouldn’t be stopped prematurely?

      This just seems to be a short term decision that overrode a long term medical treatment plan.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @ Tiffany: I’m not American, nor a lawyer, but I think everyone’s kind of misunderstood what happened legally when they extended the hold. After a hold is granted/extended, you have the right to a hearing within 4 days. If the hearing goes against you, you have the right to take it to court.

        So maybe think of the psych-hold as something like an arrest warrant? It’s comparatively easy to get, they don’t need much evidence, and it doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be remanded (held) once you get to court. The hearing (which is where she was released) is the part where the doctors have to produce evidence and where you actually get to argue your side and have a lawyer present.

    • Psych APRN says:

      There are many, many people with severe mental illness that function and cope with their symptoms. Keeping someone in the hospital because they have symptoms, such as hallucinations and/or delusions, is not feasible. It is the fine line of being dangerous to self or others, or gravely disabled. It is all relative, folks. Many do not see the folks that HAVE to stay in the hospital or a supervised setting, or jail. Many states have “medications against will” if they do not show up for them, and combine that with being conserved, that is really pretty safe. Amanda is clearly psychotic, and is probably on medications, judging by her increased appetite. The American society is set up not to be too paternalistic in regards to healthcare. If so, we would be back to the level of antiquity, forced hospitalizations, forced treatments and using “care” as a punishment for acting out against societal norms. Just look up Rosemary Kennedy and why she had a lobotomy. Joe, her father, did not like the way she was behaving in public, so he destroyed her. Should we as a people go back to that?

  7. kibbles says:

    One person should not have the power to let a mentally ill person back onto the streets. Where were her parents and her doctors? Why weren’t they at the hearing to protest this? How can anyone believe a mentally ill person? If the account is true that she is wandering around on the street gorging on food and talking to herself, why hasn’t anyone been sent to pick her up and return her to the facility? This is really outrageous. She is a wealthy celebrity. Imagine regular people’s being let out with no money and no cameras monitoring their every move. They could become a threat to themselves as well as to the public.

    • Ag says:

      a professor from the law school i attended was admitted for depression last summer. after she stabilized, she was released as she was judged to represent no danger to herself or others. she proceeded to kill herself with a gun that she purchased after being released. left two small kids and a husband. this to me represents the gigantic failures that are our mental health system and the “guns for everyone! at all times!” mentality.

      • Seapharris7 says:

        I was under the impression you couldn’t purchase a firearm if you had mental issues (such as undergoing treatment for it)? I thought that’s why there’s a waiting period? Someone was supposed to check that stuff out

      • Ag says:

        that should be the law, but that is NOT the case in most states, sadly.

      • emmie_a says:

        Your “guns for everyone” thought is wrong AG. Most states have laws against gun ownership for individuals that have been committed to psychiatric care.

        Seapharris: Do you know how common mental illness is & how many people are treated for it? It’s the level of severity of your mental illness that is involved with owning a firearm. If you have been hospitalized (voluntarily vs involuntarily), etc… not just the fact that you have a mental illness.

      • Ag says:

        my comment was directed at Seapharris’ specific statement – i believe that that should be the case. as you said, most states do have some kind of a law on the books (or follow the federal law if they don’t have a specific state one) aimed at restricting gun ownership by those who are “seriously” mentally ill. a plurality (21 as of 9/13) of states prohibits ownership if you’re involuntarily committed or have a court order against you, which doesn’t touch those who are committed voluntarily, or have serious mental illness but are never committed. some states have more lax law, and a few stricter. the woman i have mentioned lived in a state that defaulted to the federal law, which “bans firearm ownership by anyone who ‘has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.’” after being committed (voluntarily) and released, she was able to go to the local gun dealer and buy a gun on the spot, despite the law.

        i don’t know how to solve this issue, which is insanely complex and would require extensive cooperation between multiple private and public stakeholders, not to even mention the political will of our elected officials. i’m just saying that it’s a serious problem.

      • Erinn says:

        It’s great to have laws like that… but if someone wants a gun badly enough, they’re probably going to manage to find one. Or, alternatively, find another method to kill themselves, I suppose if they’re really set on it. The whole world really needs to step up in providing support for those with mental illness, and making it less tabboo to seek treatment, and seek it early.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Ag, I might be incorrect, but I thought I read a while back that while many states have these laws, but not all state agencies share information with the “database” that is used for background checks.

        For example, Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that as of 2014, there were 12 states who reported fewer than 100 mental health records to the national background check database. It seems that they are underreporting, even if they are in a state with laws about sharing information.

  8. Ag says:


  9. Talie says:

    This is how it is for people with much, much less money than she has. That’s why you see so many mentally ill homeless. They get released and stay on the streets.

    • Jem says:

      Very sobering truth, Talie. Also, these folks are extremely vulnerable to being abused or worse.

    • bluhare says:

      Thank you Talie. Agree.

      Poor Amanda. She hates her parents for tricking her I understand, so she’ll probably have to be arrested to get back into treatment.

  10. Clementine says:

    While I don’t know the specifics of Amanda’s case (nor does anyone except her family and doctors), it would be an INCREDIBLY scary system if mentally ill people who were not presenting as threats to themselves or others were able to be held and medicated against their will. I know this doesn’t seem to be a popular oppinion re: Amanda, who clearly has issues, the extent of which are not known – I would hate to live in the Orwellian world that people seem to be wishing for – “this girl is CLEARLY not well, according to ME (not her educated psychiatrist or healthcare worker) – Lock her away and medicate her!!! Indefinitely!!!” Not saying Amanda does not need help – I have no idea what her condition is – but locking people away too liberally scares me. Where would it end? Clearly she is no longer presenting as a danger to herself or others. Do we then Lock her away because of what may possibly happen based on scary anecdotal stories? Therein lies the problem when we deal with mental Iliness.

    • HappyMom says:

      So now we have scores of mentally ill roaming the streets, dying in the streets, clogging our jails, committing horrific crimes, not receiving treatment because they choose not to. I understand the other way seems scary-but this is the opposite-and clearly it’s not working.

      • Bridget says:

        But you could also say the same about other groups of people (say, drug addicts who choose not to get help). Everyone has the right to civil liberties, and the consequence is that some people make bad choices.

      • Lauren says:

        I agree with Clementine and Bridget.
        You can never ‘cure’ the world from all evil, sickness, crime etc.
        Locking people away against their will reminds me of the early days of psychiatry, let’s never revisit that.

    • Diana says:

      I agree with HappyMom. Now, jails and prisons have become the state psychiatric institutions. And they do forcibly medicate people with psychiatric issues. You can refuse to be medicated, but they’ll just parade you in front of the magistrate and they will usually sign the forced medication order for you, no questions asked. It’s horrific. I used to work in a prison as a social worker, so I saw it every day.

      Lots of severely homeless people have no support in the world and our community mental health system is in SHAMBLES. The wait lists for community mental health programs are long (if the programs even exist at all) and a lot of times, you can’t even get considered unless you are working with a case manager (hard to get if you are a straight community referral). Getting into community mental health programs requires dedication and patience. If you are profoundly mentally ill, which is also a population that traditionally strongly resists taking medication and receiving psychiatric services, then getting help is very hard. Most of the severely mentally ill are forced to get their help in jail, on psych wards.

      Forcing people to take medication and locking them up against their will is bad. But the way it is now, with community mental health so overloaded and underfunded… It’s horrific too. A lot of people who need help the most, refuse it. And then what do you? We have what we have now, which is it’s own brand of awful and dangerous and not helping anyone. We need a balance, but I don’t know how to do it in a way that would work (having seen the dysfunction of social services, I am skeptical that any system could be implemented).

    • Embee says:

      I think we need to look more closely at “danger to self or others.” That definition needs to be expanded beyond the “likely to cause imminent lethal harm” to something broader.

    • Isadora says:

      As far as I know she doused her dog in gasoline before she was comitted the first time. So yes, she is a danger to (at least) others and I don’t care if it was “just” a dog or a human being.

  11. GingerCrunch says:

    Oh NO!!! The apps are gonna start following her and I’m gonna have to read about it cuz I’m concerned. We’re all going though this again together! I didn’t want to think about it anymore!!!!

  12. serena says:

    Is she bulimic too? Ordering that much food.. I kind of get that impression..

    • Chibichichai says:

      Maybe, she was on the skinny side before she was hospitalized. However, the food at the hospital could have been terrible and now she is over indulging herself.

    • Shannon says:

      Medications can do weird things to appetite too. I am on a medication that makes me not hungry at all during the day but when it wears off around dinner time I could eat an elephant.

  13. Arya Martell says:

    I know it sounds cruel but Amanda’s case is showing to me that sometimes the old way is the best way. In the old days we put these people in an asylum and more often than not they were forced to stay there. Now I understand that many of these people suffered grave indignities and abuse. I also understand that the reason that the laws are the way they are now is because of the abuse and indignities that these people suffered. But after working in the mental health field for almost 6 years I’m not sure forcing someone into lucidity when they are insane and could potentially harm themselves or others is a bad thing. It’s about sadety of the individual. I don’t condone abusing patients at all but at the same time I cannot condone letting someone like Amanda who is so disturbed back out into the streets where she will either harm herself or someone else. Hopefully Amanda’s parents are able to sue the person that let her out. This situation is looking very ugly.

    • Jeanette says:

      Arya good point, the laws now work against anyone besides the person that is ill- helping them to do what is best for them.

    • Seapharris7 says:

      The bigger issue Arya, as it was discovered in the 70s-80s, was the Asylums were often rundown & the the treatment was terrifying. AHS Asylum wasn’t too far off with how filthy & awful things can be for patients. Geraldo Rivera (I know, but I remember this) did an exclusive on a children’s asylum around that time – mostly for retarded/downsyndrome children. Full of disease, often unclothed, malnourished, etc. A few years back, our local “state school” where they house those *adults* like that that are wards of the state was in the news because the “caretakers” were making them get into physical fights & posting the videos online. That was only a few years ago! Imagine what still happens that we don’t know about.

      • Arya Martell says:

        Seapharris, I want to be clear. I’m not saying that anyone gravely disabled should in any way shape or form be allowed to be treated horribly, abused or should be allowed to live in dilapidated conditions in an institution. The mentally ill have rights to live their life as freely as humanly possible – within the constraints of their illness and keeping the public safe. What I am saying is that we cannot expect nor should we trust the severely mentally ill to be able to exercise their rights in a way that will not harm them or anyone else and therefore making sure that they are safe and that the public is safe should be a #1 priority even if that means keeping them institutionalized for the rest of their life.

        What I would like to see is funding put back into mental health facilities and social housing for people such as Amanda who are gravely disabled and will likely need some level of supervision for the rest of their lives. I want there to be someone who is looking out for them and for families to have somewhere that they can go to or seek out that can ease the burden of caring for their sick loved ones. I’m saying that it should be easier to keep someone such as Amanda in lockdown in a clean facility where they are treated fairly and it should be easier to force them to take medication if it means keeping the rest of us safe and the patient safe.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        What happened was the during the Carter administration, mental health legislation (Mental Health Systems Act) was passed that would give attention and funds for the issue. It was to fund federal community mental health centers and give grants for treatment and prevention of mental illness. Then when Reagan was elected, he and the GOP senate worked around the legislation and diverted the funds elsewhere, so the help that was coming never came.

      • Brionne says:

        +100000 @ Tiffany! The Reagan administration actions basically resulted in institutionalized mentally ill being turned out into the streets.

  14. Kristen says:

    She just went on another Twitter rant about her dad being a sexual predator and fighting her parents for control of her life/finances.

  15. Mischa Jane says:

    If she did all of the things they are saying she did after she was released, well, she doesn’t sound like she’s stable or any better. So how did she sound stable just a few hours before when she requested release?

  16. Jeanette says:

    I wonder what their options are sad. I bet it will be harder for them to get her back in treatment unless something happens..lets pray its not anything harmful.

  17. malachais says:

    SO where are her parents that were so desperately worried for her. This whole situation is so questionable. Why are they dropping off when she is on her own? I know she is an adult and doesn’t have to go with them, but they should atleast hire a bodyguard or someone to make sure she is safe.

    • captain hero says:

      They have legal control over her finances, which is what I think they wanted all along. And to discredit her to the point where her accusations of sexual abuse aren’t taken seriously. Both of these goals have been achieved and now she’s on her own.

      • Brionne says:

        So you don’t see that this woman is severely mentally ill and incapable of adequately caring for herself? It’s all just the evil parents trying to get her money, huh?

      • Falkor says:

        I agree captain hero, and I question their greater motives and their recruiting of Sam Lufti to help them deceive their daughter. Something about the parents pings my radar.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      You can’t just hire a body guard to protect someone against their will. I don’t’ think they “dropped her off”…she has been at the hospital for weeks, and it was the hospital that released her. If she did not want her parents to be contacted about her release, I don’t think they would be informed. HIPAA laws, and all that.

  18. Jh says:

    She walked out the front door of the hearing. She has no where to go. That’s the first insanely jarring incidence. Then she is found speaking to herself in a public place. WTF. And people wonder why homelessness is such a huge problem.

  19. Vampi says:

    My heart has NEVER been this broken over a celeb’s plight since MJ……This poor poor girl!! The world saw it!! (new DUI, two attempted shoplifts, talking to herself (ok..I do that, so…), and getting into an altercation, and other bizzare behavior……I just DO NOT UNDERSTAND how a judge could release her when it SEEMS the docs and parents and oh…I dunno…EVERYONE can she that she is in DESPERATE need of long term mental health care!!!!!! This is really upsetting!! She needs help! I hate this world sometimes! Whatever happens….it’s on that asshat who let her back out before she was stable! And also………..considering this has been SO public…how could anyone, especially a JUDGE, think this was the right move??? Please someone explain it to me!!! I am highly upset about this and I’m not sure why!! (Ok…I know “why”….but I just cannot understand the choice!) dear Lord help this lost soul…

  20. kri says:

    Oh my god. How could they let her go like that. I am praying for this girl and her family. This is a situation that could end horribly. I don’t want that to happen.

  21. anne_000 says:

    She does NOT sound well at all. From TMZ:

    “Amanda, who paid with a credit card that did not have her name on it, did not seem “with it,” according to the waitress. She would carry on a conversation and then when the waitress walked away, Amanda would mumble to herself.

    The waitress tells us … Amanda complained she lost 20 pounds recently and that’s why she was so hungry, but didn’t want anyone to see her eat because she’d “look like a fat ass.”


    “Sources tell us Bynes attempted to snag a room at the London hotel as she meandered the streets on the Sunset Strip Thursday, but when she got there she was turned away. Amanda has stayed there before and caused big problems.

    We’re told Amanda became angry, grabbed a giant wad of cash, and tossed the bills into the air in the direction of the front desk.”

    TMZ also said that she’s been tweeting that she’s going to file a police report on her father for sexual molestation and that her parents & Lufti have been stealing from her.

  22. SillySimone says:

    She is back on twitter already (not even 24 hours since release) calling various people ugly, claiming she just had surgery, and again claiming her father is a sexual predator. She is not remotely stable.

    Here are her last few tweets, I kid you not:

    “-Sam Lufti is Ugly

    -jilly is pretty

    -I hate you

    -I am crying

    -I am ug butt

    -My sister is not as un pretty as me

    -Like would my mom need to help me take care of myself

    -My Dad Is UGLY FOOLS”

  23. Dommy Dearest says:

    Though I haven’t seen many comments yet that poke fun at it, I want to say this: If you were sad about Robin Williams and you’re laughing at Amanda Bynes, check yourself. Mental illness is not a joke nor a spectator sport.

    (Not posting it towards anyone, just to make that clear.)

  24. Greek Chic says:

    I had read somewhere that the symptoms of mental disorders start around puberty or early adulthood. She is 29 i think? I don’t follow her career but i think that she hadn’t any issues before… Is is possible for a person around her age to develop a that serious mental illness all of a sudden? You can deal with depression at any age but this is more serious…
    My mother has a friend with schizophrenia and i know she started to act abnormal at 10.
    If someone is familiar with the subject i would like to know…

    • paranormalgirl says:

      @Greek Chic – I am a psychiatrist. The average age of onset for schizophrenia is 25 for a woman with onset after age 30 being not uncommon. For bipolar, it is 25 with a common range of 15-30 years of age.

      • Greek Chic says:

        @paranormalgirl that’s interesting, thanks for the answer! I also thought that genetics played the main role to the development of the illness, but it looks that Amanda doesn’t have family history of mental disorders (or her parents hide it)

        The son of mom’s friend had also issues and killed himself two years ago. That’s so sad,i hope Amanda gets well.

  25. paranormalgirl says:

    This is why a judge should not have the power to end a psychiatric hold. They are often clueless about mental illness.

    • Arya Martell says:

      There has been a push for years to give psychologists and psychiatrists more legal jurisdiction over those who are gravely disabled for mental illness. While I would always want there to be oversight, I think it’s a good idea.

      • paranormalgirl says:

        A lot of us in the mental health field think there should ALWAYS be a panel comprised of 2 or more mental health professionals and one legal professional to make these determinations. It takes two doctors and a judge (generally) to get someone declared incompetent and start the psych hold process. It should take at least the same to get someone released.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      I totally agree!
      What I have noticed is that they aren’t calling the person a judge, but a “hearing officer”. It doesn’t make sense that simple officer could make such a decision, so I am wondering if the position has greater authority than what the title suggests.

  26. Vvvoid says:

    Tiled’s father is a bipolar sociopaths. He just went off the deep end recently and stole a couple grand for my uncle and one of my vehicles to trade for drugs. He has not ever admitted to being diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder her but I am a psychology major, with a focus on forensic psychology, and I truly believe him to be a sociopaths. Unfortunately, in his case, there is no known treatment for antisocial personality disorder and although he has taken shelter in a rehab to avoid the arrest warrant that has been issued for him, I know that he will not be getting any real help. Mental illness is very poorly understood, everyone has their theories but they are nebulous at best for the most part. He bamboozles the staff at any facility he checks into, he charms everyone into thinking he is on the right track and he gets a stamp of approval and released only to repeat pretty much exactly the same pattern of behavior he has is the bed for almost 2 decades. It wouldn’t be so bad if you didn’t leave so many victims in his wake. Like his daughter, my daughter. She will never know him now, because in my mind exposing her to him is not worth the risk of her developing his personality traits since she already has his DNA.

  27. St says:

    Even more “biggest problem” is that when that lunatic will commit crime and will hurt someone – her lawyers will be all like: “But she is mentally ill. She didn’t know what she was doing. We should not put her in hail for 10 years. We should get her to psych ward for 6 months and then release”.

    That’s the problem. If court said that she was sane enough for streets then court should prosecute her as sane person when she will commit crime.

  28. Brionne says:

    De-institutionalization has been the prevailing philosophy in the Kennedy administration and the Reagan administration. Initially the Kennedy family were advocates of not having people committed to psychiatric facilities for life and to have those with mental illness “integrated into the community” via group homes, apartments and day treatment programs in the community. In an ideal world a person wouldn’t be committed to a hospital for life and would be able to work or attend school with support while living in the community. I believe the Kennedy family had a disabled sister?

    Fast forward 20 years and the Reagan administration got on board and also eliminated a lot of federal support for psychiatric facilities in the federal budget. Lots of people were turned out into the streets when institutions closed down due to no funding. Only those community support systems were few and far between so untreated, unsupported homeless mentally ill were left in the lurch due to public policy. It is right and noble to advocate for community inclusion and “least restrictive environment” but when states fail to put adequate supports in place the severely mentally ill are left with few options.

    Nerd rant: off

    • Falkor says:

      Rosemary Kennedy was disabled because her father had her personality ripped out of her skull when she was a young woman. Her “rebellious” ways were no longer a threat to the empire once she was lobotomized, after which she was left with the mental facilities of a two-year-old and was incontinent. The track record for mental health in the states has ranged from woefully inept to horrifically brutal, but has never really looked good.

  29. L says:

    i work in the MH field and i am glad that we have laws that can’t hold us if we are not causing harm to self or others. And I am sure you would be too! If it was you. This is her life and she needs to learn how to manage her mental health. Not just get locked up and medicated.

    • paranormalgirl says:

      I, too, work in the mental health field (psychiatrist) and while I am glad that there are some laws protecting people from involuntary hold, it is who is deciding on someone not being a harm to self or others that is the issue. It should be the mental health professionals, not a law professional making that determination. An officer of the court is not going to assist someone to manage his/her mental health. And good luck managing schizophrenia or bipolar without assistance. These illnesses, like any other serious illness, require treatment and medication.

      • Lucrezia says:

        @ paranormalgirl: It wasn’t necessarily a law professional. I just looked up who can be a “certification review hearing officer”, and the answer is:

        “either a state qualified administrative law hearing officer, a physician and surgeon, a licensed psychologist, a registered nurse, a lawyer, a certified law student, a licensed
        clinical social worker, a licensed marriage and family therapist, or a licensed professional clinical counselor.

        Licensed psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, licensed marriage and family
        therapists, licensed professional clinical counselors, and registered nurses who serve as certification review hearing officers shall have had a minimum of five years’ experience in mental health.”

        Most of those seem appropriate. But I am disturbed by the idea that it can simply be a certified law student. I’d also prefer the doctors and lawyers to have some minimum required experience in mental health, but I’d bet that in practice 99.99% of them do, or else why apply for that kind of position in the first place?

      • paranormalgirl says:

        Unfortunately, it is almost always a law hearing officer or someone who has no in depth knowledge of the case at hand. And again, it should not be ONE person making this determination. It should be a panel. If it takes at least 2 physicians (generally psychiatrists) to place the hold (in most states), it should be at least 2 to release.